The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Going by what various people have told me about XHTML1, or HTML5, I'm going to have to recode most of my pages.
I rarely close my <P> tags, also there are other tags that I don't close.
But, I'm assuming we won't actually have to change for a while due to client browsers being incompatible with XHTML.
Does anyone know when the expected release date is?

Ahhh closing <p> tags, I very rarely close them. The <br /> change won't bother me that much as I will just use a sitewide find and replace utillity . It still will cause unnecessary work though. I suppose we have to make sacrifices to mve forward though .

I can't be sure, but wouldn't it makes sense that at least a few people would try to develop and release a (hopefully freeware) HTML -> XHTML converter? I don't think it would be too difficult (save for the addition of the closing Paragraph tags) to do.

Originally posted by Chuck I can't be sure, but wouldn't it makes sense that at least a few people would try to develop and release a (hopefully freeware) HTML -> XHTML converter? I don't think it would be too difficult (save for the addition of the closing Paragraph tags) to do.

Anyway, I just thought I'd mention it since that would make sense.

-chuck

I'm tempted to try and rustle one of those up myself, now you come to mention it
Shouldn't be that complicated to code...although it risks mucking up the layout with the closing <P> tags.
Watch this space!

imagine what will Netscape do..they will probably need another 4 versions of Navigator(or whatever) to display XHTML ok, since they had so many problems and issues with navigator 4.08.

my opinion is that all this is not necessary, i mean XML and XHTML. almost nobody is using XML and XHTML won't be widely used either. i think we just don't need so many versions of HTML..we have Java,Javascript,HTML,XML,scripting languages with PHP and ASP,databases and that's probably enough for everybody..

Any browser that can read and PARSE XML with an external DTD is compliant.

The biggest advantage of XHTML is that on compliant browsers you won't have to upgrade the browser to take advantage of new tags released by the W3C. You can also incorporate XML easy enabling you to create your own tags.

XHTML is backwards compatible as stated above but only if you use the transitional or basic DTD's. If you use the Strict DTD there is no such thing as FONT tags, IMAGE tags or SOUND tags. No APPLET or EMBED tags either. Search engines may very well start requiring use of the STRICT DTD to get listed, because not only will they be able to point to a page on your site but to a paragraph on your site or to a particular product listed on your site.

I find it kind of amusing that the biggest problem your complaining about is the closing paragraph tag which will not do anything to effect your pages or their layout. It does make manipulating your pages easier in Ecmascript (previously known as Javascript). How about the fact that every single tag has to be closed including the much used IMG and HR. If a tag isn't closed it will be ignored by an XHTML compliant browser as being malformed. Not only that but XHTML is case sensitive meaning that "<P>" cannot be closed by "</p>". Also all attributes must be enclosed in single or double quotes to be valid otherwise they are simply ignored. Of course if you make sure your HTML is truly compliant today you won't have problems with any of this, all you would have to do is close image, BR and HR tags. Get used to the OBJECT tag as well since it will be replacing the IMG, APPLET, BGSOUND and EMBED tags. That is of course cross-browser/cross-platform compatibility isn't a concern of yours.

Or how about the fact that XHTML is module based, meaning if you don't need support for certain tags you don't have to load the specifications for them. What about the proposed new FORM module (XFORMS) and its enhanced capabilities? With XForms and XML's built in Ecmascript capabilities you can assign validation routines to particular elements automatically, you can create your own elements meaning a Phone element would be treated differently than an email element.

Have any of you considered the following excerpt?

Here are some rough guidelines for HTML authors. If you use these, you are more likely to end up with pages that are easy to maintain, look acceptable to users regardless of the browser they are using, and can be accessed by the many Web users with disabilities. Meanwhile W3C have produced some more formal guidlines for authors. Have a look at the detailed accessibility guidelines.
[list=1][*]A question of style sheets. For most people the look of a document - the color, the font, the margins - are as important as the textual content of the document itself. But make no mistake! HTML is not designed to be used to control these aspects of document layout. What you should do is to use HTML to mark up headings, paragraphs, lists, hypertext links, and other structural parts of your document, and then add a style sheet to specify layout separately, just as you might do in a conventional Desk Top Publishing Package. That way, not only is there a better chance of all browsers displaying your document properly, but also, if you want to change such things as the font or color, it's really simple to do so. See the Touch of style.[*]FONT tag considered harmful! Many filters from word-processing packages, and also some HTML authoring tools, generate HTML code which is completely contrary to the design goals of the language. What they do is to look at a document almost purely from the point of view of layout, and then mimic that layout in HTML by doing tricks with FONT, BR and &nbsp; (non-breaking spaces). HTML documents are supposed to be structured around items such as paragraphs, headings and lists. Yet some of these documents barely have a paragraph tag in sight![*]The problem comes when the content of pages needs to be updated, or given a new layout, or re-cast in XML (which is now to be the new mark-up language). With proper use of HTML, such operations are not difficult, but with a muddle of non-structural tags it's quite a different matter; maintenance tasks become impractical. To correct pages suffering from injudicious use of FONT, try the HTML Tidy program, which will do its best to put things right and generate better and more manageable HTML.[*]Make your pages readable by those with disabilities. The Web is a tremendously useful tool for the visually impaired or blind user, but bear in mind that these users rely on speech synthesizers or Braille readers to render the text. Sloppy mark-up, or mark-up which doesn't have the layout defined in a separate style sheet, is hard for such software to deal with. Wherever possible, use a style sheet for the presentational aspects of your pages, using HTML purely for structural mark-up.[*]Also, remember to include descriptions with each image, and try to avoid server-side image maps. For tables, you should include a summary of the table's structure, and remember to associate table data with relevant headers. This will give non-visual browsers a chance to help orientate people as they move from one cell to the next. For forms, remember to include labels for form fields.

The easiest way to handle all of this is to start now instead of waiting for it to be required by new browsers. If your using a database driven site and your templates are properly coded, it won't take much work to change the rendering of the stored content.

Originally posted by mh8759 imagine what will Netscape do..they will probably need another 4 versions of Navigator(or whatever) to display XHTML ok, since they had so many problems and issues with navigator 4.08.

my opinion is that all this is not necessary, i mean XML and XHTML. almost nobody is using XML and XHTML won't be widely used either. i think we just don't need so many versions of HTML..we have Java,Javascript,HTML,XML,scripting languages with PHP and ASP,databases and that's probably enough for everybody..

don't you agree?

Mare

I personally don't agree. I would like the idea of being able to designate words as a link to a particular page and having every word linked automatically (Possible with XML and XLL). I like the idea of being able to have my site indexed by paragraph or product.

If someone is looking for the brand new Whatchamacallit 2000 on ValueSearch and they want the results ordered by price, I can guarantee that my site is listed as #1 by lowering my price a few cents.

I like the fact that there is no presentation capabilities in XML so I can use the data in other programs without having to worry about font and size information.

I like the fact that I can make my own markup for different uses and have that markup instantly understood by browsers around the world. Or that you can instantly translate content between HTML or WML to make your content available on wireless devices. How about the fact that you could store multi-language templates and content and determine which to serve based on the browsers location. Not only translating the content but making it conform to display properties of the region (i.e. Arabic reading from right to left). As well as automatically translating currencies, dates and times. This can never be done in HTML and requires Intense processing on the Server's part to do it today. In the future with XML and its associated helpers (XHTML, XSL and XLL), this can be done on the client with no extra strain on the server.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, many sites are using XML today including small sites such as Microsoft.com, Netscape.com, AOL.com, Altavista.com, Disney.com, Allaire.com and many others. Any site that uses Cold Fusion (*.cfm) is using XML. Any site that has a MyNetscape .RSS file is using XML, Any site using Channels in Internet Explorer (*.CDF) is using XML. In Netscape 6, the actual interface is XML based (*.XUL) and many other specifications are using it for banking, insurance, e-commerce, genealogy, chemical and math markup all over the Internet.